While I am satisfied with the conviction, I am beyond angry that for the next 40 + years I will be paying for everything he has, everything he eats, and everything he does in prison. I wish his victims had the opportunities - food, clothing, exercise, health care, education if he wants it - that he will recieve at the taxpayers expense.

He is and has always been sheltered in jail. He has his own personal jailor walk with him constantly so that nobody can touch him. Now when he leaves the county he will more than likely be put in General population.then is where he will fit in with all the other murderers. He will continue receiving 3 meals a day and $ 4.38 a day wage ( which he will never see ). WE as the tax payer will continue to shield him. They should have gave him death...death by the hands of the family members that he did not kill !!

Am curious as have just watched a documentary about this, and wasn't surprised by the verdict as the tv show focussed mostly on the lack of conclusive evidence against him - hence I expected the "surprise" verdict.Anyways it was interesting reading all the debate on here. You folks like to get worked up about these things. I remember the fascinating documentary about Michael Peterson (NC) where I saw so many differences between our legal systems.My surprise here was about the specific sentencing. The tv show I saw never mentioned it, but it seems strange he received consecutive sentences for each murder/attempted murder charge. In the UK we would not have seen that kind of sentencing given the motivation and execution of the crimes, as outlined by the prosecution. I don't understand the point of having sentencing options where concurrent sentences are an option, if they are not then used to sentence someone found guilty of committing multiple crimes in the same locus, at the same time, of the same type of crime and with the same motivation.If the consecutive (instead of concurrent) sentencing then enabled the Judge to pass a more severe sentence I could perhaps understand it, but as this was not the case, I'm left wondering what the point of that sentencing option is? If ever there was a crime where it applied (at least by English legal standards) this was it.

<quoted text>Am curious as have just watched a documentary about this, and wasn't surprised by the verdict as the tv show focussed mostly on the lack of conclusive evidence against him - hence I expected the "surprise" verdict.Anyways it was interesting reading all the debate on here. You folks like to get worked up about these things. I remember the fascinating documentary about Michael Peterson (NC) where I saw so many differences between our legal systems.My surprise here was about the specific sentencing. The tv show I saw never mentioned it, but it seems strange he received consecutive sentences for each murder/attempted murder charge. In the UK we would not have seen that kind of sentencing given the motivation and execution of the crimes, as outlined by the prosecution. I don't understand the point of having sentencing options where concurrent sentences are an option, if they are not then used to sentence someone found guilty of committing multiple crimes in the same locus, at the same time, of the same type of crime and with the same motivation.If the consecutive (instead of concurrent) sentencing then enabled the Judge to pass a more severe sentence I could perhaps understand it, but as this was not the case, I'm left wondering what the point of that sentencing option is? If ever there was a crime where it applied (at least by English legal standards) this was it.

There is a reason that the Judge did all of the convictions as consecutive life sentences. It insures that he will never be let out of prison ever. Should he be able to appeal one or more of the murder charges during the appellate appeals he still has multiple consecutive life sentences to complete. It also was done due to the heinous nature of this case. It is one of the worst mass murders ever in Georgia's history.It is also to send a message that each person he murdered had equal worth and were individuals so the Judge didn't lump all of them together as if he only murdered one person.Most cases so wind up with the sentences running concurrent but this case was by far out of the norm even for heinous crimes committed here.I kept up with the actual trial from beginning to end and there was more than enough evidence to prove he did this, and all by himself. I haven't seen the documentary to know how accurate it truly is. He knew he was going to be convicted or retried if it was a hung jury so he took the deal to spare his life from death row. He really deserves to be on death row for what he did to this poor unsuspecting family members but at least he will come out of prison one way and one way only..........in a pine box.

<quoted text>There is a reason that the Judge did all of the convictions as consecutive life sentences. It insures that he will never be let out of prison ever. Should he be able to appeal one or more of the murder charges during the appellate appeals he still has multiple consecutive life sentences to complete. It also was done due to the heinous nature of this case. It is one of the worst mass murders ever in Georgia's history.It is also to send a message that each person he murdered had equal worth and were individuals so the Judge didn't lump all of them together as if he only murdered one person.Most cases so wind up with the sentences running concurrent but this case was by far out of the norm even for heinous crimes committed here.I kept up with the actual trial from beginning to end and there was more than enough evidence to prove he did this, and all by himself. I haven't seen the documentary to know how accurate it truly is. He knew he was going to be convicted or retried if it was a hung jury so he took the deal to spare his life from death row. He really deserves to be on death row for what he did to this poor unsuspecting family members but at least he will come out of prison one way and one way only..........in a pine box.

I was questioning a legal point. You are clearly mixing up the emotion of what you call a "heinous crime" and that does not (at least in English jurisprudence) get conflicted with simple legal points.My point was that a conviction on one of the murder charges is apparently sufficient for the judge to sentence him to life without possibility of parole - thus any logic in your argument falls apart.Common sense dictates a crime of this type when apparently committed by one person in what the law (as outlined by the prosecutor) perceives to be from one motive, all in one "act" means that when the law permits concurrent sentencing (as I assume the Judge could use in this case) it legally is correct to apply concurrent sentencing - regardless of the sentence passed.Maybe this is just a quirk of US law. In England the purpose of offering the option of concurrent sentencing is a purely legal issue and would have been applicable here. The concurrent sentence in itself does not limit the sentencing options of the Judge - clearly what you call the heinous nature of this crime would ultimately determine the sentence passed and would in this case not have limited the options, hence the nature of the crime would be applicable.I am not an expert in US law, but if your argument that the sentencing in this case was consecutive as opposed to concurrent, simply because of how you characterise the unpleasantness of the crime, you are failing to divorce the mechanics of the law from intangible issues such as the "heinous" nature of the crime that can be perceived on a human and emotional level.I still have not been given a proper reason why the Judge was legally allowed to sentence consecutively. I concede I do not have the same understanding of US law as I do of that practiced in England, but I struggle to see how laws can have been enacted that take account of perceived inhumanity, as that would by definition be hard to frame in legal language.If the answer to my query is that the Judge chose consecutive sentences because of the horrific nature of the crime in question, then it appears I come from a very different legal system where issues such as consecutive instead of concurrent sentences are decided purely on points of law, rather than an overriding need to satisfy the repugnant desire of the public for vengeance. If this is the case I sure know which system I'd prefer to face, were I accused of a crime!However as you have spectacularly failed to identify legitimate legal points justifying the consecutive sentances, I would not be so rash as to consider that any proper points of law have been established or otherwise - thus my question remains unanswered.

Then I suppose you will have to criticize the Judge who made those decisions. Maybe you can be as condescending and arrogant to him as you are to me, and see how well that works out for you. No one cares what you think.

Strange that it always seems to be a foreigner from another country that tries to put our justice system down when that stranger doesn't even try cases in the US.(thank goodness)

I honestly don't think the Presiding Judge in this case cares one whit what you think about his decision. Here any Judge can choose to sentence someone concurrently or consecutively if there are multiple convictions.

You do realize that Guy Heinz Jr and his death qualified, highly seasoned defense team agreed to the 8 consecutive life sentences?

And you are wrong, the Judge does base part of his decision on how heinous the murder(s) were and if they were premeditated like this one was. That is why some defendants only get 15-25 years to life with a possibility for parole for some murder, and other get LWOP or death.

These crimes were considered extremely heinous and cruel by law. It was one of the factor why it was a death penalty case in the first place. The 'heinousness and cruelty' did not change because GHJ was willing to accept 8 consecutive life sentences. The Judge was there ..........he saw the evidence for himself as to what he had done to 8 of his family members when he bludgeoned them all to death as they all lay sleeping., So yeah he threw the book at him, and he deserved all of it.

Now please go harass someone else that may really care. I was only trying to be helpful, but its obvious that you think you 'know it all', even though you are not a citizen in our country or even a defense attorney here for that matter.

I just watched the documentary on this case. I found it sad that they passed the guilty verdict. My gut instinct is that he was involved in some way or another. After the documentary I started googling the case and come up with this blog - which took me hours to read. Theres a lot of people who actually knew Guy and say he was a good character. Its unusual for a serial killer to not show signs of any past troubles (although I am not a specialist in this area just armchair detective) The family was close and loving, he was a nice guy.....There is definitely more to this case and it seems like the police department just wanted to arrest someone quickly and put this to bed. There are things that make me think guilty (like I said its a gut instinct) but there are so many things that think theres not enough proof. He had gone through the house, seen everyone so he may have after looking at everyone realised they was 'beat to death' the police officer said he thought it when he FIRST walked in. There was NO blood in the car. Barely any dna evidence. An ex co-worker who claimed he was going to kill all his family but was a year out on when he said it. I read somewhere he was with his brother that night......His family (brother and grandmother) believe his innocence. Seems to me that there was such a lack of evidence and the jury delivered the guilty verdict on 'gut instinct' and not on the facts and evidence (or lack of) I doubt beyond reasonable belief that he could have done that on his own, without either his victims fighting back or hurting himself during the 'heinous crime' it was such a rampage for 1 person that I think he would have cut himself or scratched himself at least even if the victims were asleep - especially on the splintered gun barrel. I feel that he was a scapegoat and the real justice has not been served - the truth with probably never be known.

oh and to caring: I think your justice system is much better than the British. Life here is 23 years (something around that number, but please don't quote me) Although I do not believe in the death penalty I do not think it is ok to kill someone because they killed. I do not think it would be ok for my son to hit another child if the child hit him...just my view.And ive never watched CSI in my life - but surely this was lacking in dna. lacking in a motive, lacking in so many things.But like I said my gut instinct was he knows what happened.

Caring:I think you should try to watch the documentary - lots of interviews with his grandmother and brother Tyler, legal team, legal team and footage from the courtroom. Since you have been following this since the beginning you will find it interesting.

I too have just seen the bbc documentary and I too don't believe you can prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.He had some blood on his under shorts, surely that is normal as he was in the house when he found the victims. The prosecution argued those were the shorts he had been wearing when he killed his family but did you see how much blood was in the house? he only had a few specks of blood on his shorts, if they were the shorts he had been wearing when the murders happened they would have been covered in blood.The prosecution argued he had killed all of the family with a blunt object. Surely he would have had bruising on his hands if he had to use a blunt object to smash 8 people's heads in. You get a blunt object and smack it against something hard over 400 times or whatever number he allegedly did it and you tell me what state your hands are in after, not even a scratch was found on his hands.to be guity you must prove guilt BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.In this trial that was not proven, the prosecution had a theory but no solid evidence to confirm that theory. It was all ifs and buts and probablys and maybes.The jury should be ashamed, they sentenced a young man to life in prison based on very weak evidence.

I too have just seen the bbc documentary and I too don't believe you can prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.He had some blood on his under shorts, surely that is normal as he was in the house when he found the victims. The prosecution argued those were the shorts he had been wearing when he killed his family but did you see how much blood was in the house? he only had a few specks of blood on his shorts, if they were the shorts he had been wearing when the murders happened they would have been covered in blood.The prosecution argued he had killed all of the family with a blunt object. Surely he would have had bruising on his hands if he had to use a blunt object to smash 8 people's heads in. You get a blunt object and smack it against something hard over 400 times or whatever number he allegedly did it and you tell me what state your hands are in after, not even a scratch was found on his hands.to be guity you must prove guilt BEYOND ALL REASONABLE DOUBT.In this trial that was not proven, the prosecution had a theory but no solid evidence to confirm that theory. It was all ifs and buts and probablys and maybes.The jury should be ashamed, they sentenced a young man to life in prison based on very weak evidence.

These documentaries are causing quite a stir in England. Everyone I have spoke to who has watched the programme says the don't think there was beyond reasonable doubt either. It seems that juror 152 was sticking to his guns and putting his gut instinct aside and not wanting to commit him as guilty. It seems asif the death penalty was offered not as a plea but to get a verdict as both sides didn't want a hung verdict and another set of jurors and another case.Maybe caring can help me with these answers: Why did Guy Henize jnr not get put on the stand and cross examined? Also why did Tyler Heinze not get put in the witness box as I saw a video where he says he was with his brother that night a couple of hours before the murder (link added below)Brit guy I agree, like I said I have a gut feeling he knew what happened and in some way or another was involved....however I could never say yes your guilty on that alone. There was no way beyond reasonable doubt.The tv guide promised the documentary would leave you shaking - and that it did. Hence why I googled the case and took hours reading this blog. Ive never wrote on a blog this is my first time - It really is such a very sad case. http://jacksonville.com/news/metro/2009-09-06...

oh and to caring: I think your justice system is much better than the British. Life here is 23 years (something around that number, but please don't quote me Although I do not believe in the death penalty I do not think it is ok to kill someone because they killed. I do not think it would be ok for my son to hit another child if the child hit him...just my view.And ive never watched CSI in my life - but surely this was lacking in dna. lacking in a motive, lacking in so many things.

I want to thank you for at least posting to me in a respectful manner. This is one of the reasons I am reply and then I will not return to discuss this case any longer for there is no point.

I will not discuss the death penalty because I am aware your country doesn't have the death penalty. All I will say it is the law here and over 70% of the USA citizens agree in certain cases the death penalty should be imposed. It has nothing to do with 'getting back' at someone. It has everything to do with punishment based with how heinous and cruel their particular crime was and if it rises way above what society is willing to accept. This is one of such cases.

Motive here is not one of the required elements the DA has to proved. However; shortly after the homicides happened local reporters discovered that just two days before the family was murdered GH Sr. had been awarded $25,000 in a civil judgment. You can find the video where the reporter is talking about it on Youtube.

Now some will say, no one would murder these people for just that small amount of money. But they would be wrong. Victims have been murdered for a lot less. And this was a family who had nothing and struggled day to day to even make ends meet and put food on the table. 25K to GHJ would be like winning a $250K lottery. He knew his father well enough to know he would share his good fortune with ALL of the people that were murdered. That is the kind of man his father was.

Saying he couldn't have done this alone is just not true. Unfortunately he is not the worst mass murderer in Georgia's history who bludgeoned their family members to death. He is just one of them.

The most infamous crime in nineteenth-century Georgia occurred in Bibb County, about twelve miles west of Macon, in the early morning hours of August 6, 1887, when Tom Woolfolk (pronounced WUHL-fork) murdered NINE members of his family with an ax.

**********

I was unable to watch the documentary. It required me to download BBC reader which I did not want to do. Maybe it will be put on youtube at some point in time. If so, I will watch it there. Although documentaries like everything else are done with bias slants. Did they have jurors on that actually sat on the case or the prosecutor that tried the case? Did they have any of the detectives that worked the case? Local, GBI or the FBI?

If I had a dollar for every time I have seen family members of convicted murders say they believe them to be innocent, I would be a rich woman today. I have been following true crime cases for over three decades.... so hearing family members of murderers proclaiming they are innocent is commonplace as the sun rising in the morning. Others in his family certainly do believe he is guilty. BTW did they have all family members on? Those who absolutely do believe he is guilty? You know to make it fair and balanced?

Why some think a case like this has to be proven by DNA, I don't quite understand. More cases are tried, and won, that were circumstantial evidence case. We put people away here in missing body cases where there is absolutely no forensic evidence to be found nor can they say how the victim was murdered. They do it with an overwhelming amount of CE just like they had in the Heinz case.

After watching "Life and Death Ros" here in England on the bbc I can say I honestly cannot see how this man is guilty. Where is he jmprisoned? Can anyone see anything other than stupid jurors and 99.9 %of the evidence points to innocence. I can't believe what a mistrial this is.

I want to thank you for at least posting to me in a respectful manner. This is one of the reasons I am reply and then I will not return to discuss this case any longer for there is no point.I will not discuss the death penalty because I am aware your country doesn't have the death penalty. All I will say it is the law here and over 70% of the USA citizens agree in certain cases the death penalty should be imposed. It has nothing to do with 'getting back' at someone. It has everything to do with punishment based with how heinous and cruel their particular crime was and if it rises way above what society is willing to accept. This is one of such cases.Motive here is not one of the required elements the DA has to proved. However; shortly after the homicides happened local reporters discovered that just two days before the family was murdered GH Sr. had been awarded $25,000 in a civil judgment. You can find the video where the reporter is talking about it on Youtube.Now some will say, no one would murder these people for just that small amount of money. But they would be wrong. Victims have been murdered for a lot less. And this was a family who had nothing and struggled day to day to even make ends meet and put food on the table. 25K to GHJ would be like winning a $250K lottery. He knew his father well enough to know he would share his good fortune with ALL of the people that were murdered. That is the kind of man his father was.Saying he couldn't have done this alone is just not true. Unfortunately he is not the worst mass murderer in Georgia's history who bludgeoned their family members to death. He is just one of them.http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/h...The most infamous crime in nineteenth-century Georgia occurred in Bibb County, about twelve miles west of Macon, in the early morning hours of August 6, 1887, when Tom Woolfolk (pronounced WUHL-fork) murdered NINE members of his family with an ax.**********I was unable to watch the documentary. It required me to download BBC reader which I did not want to do. Maybe it will be put on youtube at some point in time. If so, I will watch it there. Although documentaries like everything else are done with bias slants. Did they have jurors on that actually sat on the case or the prosecutor that tried the case? Did they have any of the detectives that worked the case? Local, GBI or the FBI?If I had a dollar for every time I have seen family members of convicted murders say they believe them to be innocent, I would be a rich woman todayHi Caring,Yes they showed on the programme 4 REAL jurors from the case and they showed the police and the prosecution and defence team. Keep an eye out on youtube as its a shame you cant see it. Its more of a film than a documentary as its 1hr 15 mins, it really isn't a biased opinion. Its not narrated and is quite nicely done. I was so intrigued after seeing the programme I had to google it. Like I said I think he knows something - I don't think he did it alone tho if he was involved. Maybe I just hope someone couldn't do that to there family.My opinion is that you are innocent before proven guilty - and at the trial they have to prove your guilty - it really didn't seem like they proved that to me. Such a shame you cant watch it, clearly it wouldn't change your mind but as you followed the case I think you would appreciate it.Its trending over here in England and has a lot of people talking about it, mainly like me believe that the trail was unfair and the sentence was not correct, in fact I haven't come across anyone who thinks otherwise, So maybe the documentary was biased - if was able to see it you could have given your opinion on that.Can you just tell me why he didn't take the stand? You seem to be a pro on this kind of thing and its really baffled me.

Yes there was actual real members of the jury on the programme (4 of them) leading police chief, prosecution, defence, videos of him being interviewed, lots of videos from court etc, I don't think it was a biased documentary - it was more like a docu film as it didn't have a narrator and is quite nicely done. Its trending over here in the uk - and ive not come across 1 person who thinks that the guilty verdict was fair....so maybe it was biased. It really is a shame you cant see it to give your opinion - clearly you wont change your mind on the case but I would like to see what you thought. I thought that you are innocent until proven guilty and going to court is about proving your guilty - and for me it didn't seem like they proved it. It was lots of theories and maybe's but no definite.Again I think he was somehow or way involved at least he knew what had happened. After watching the video of Tyler after the funeral saying I know drugs were involved in the home maybe it was something to do with drugs maybe someone ripped somebody off (something along those lines anyway) seemed to me like he knew more than he was letting on. I was speaking to a work colleague who I sent a link to of the video of Tyler at the funeral and without even saying it she read my mind and said I wonder if he Guy jnr was covering for his younger brother. Good old armchair detectives finally solving the case (haha)

Caring - could you confirm why Guy Heinze Jnr didn't take the stand and be cross examined. Is this normal practice in American courts?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Add your comments below

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite.
Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.